McLaughlin v. State, No. 25576.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 575 S.E.2d 841,352 S.C. 476 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 2003 |
| Parties | Kevin McLAUGHLIN, Respondent, v. STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner. |
| Docket Number | No. 25576. |
352 S.C. 476
575 S.E.2d 841
v.
STATE of South Carolina, Petitioner
No. 25576.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Submitted December 5, 2002.
Decided January 13, 2003.
Richard J. Breibart, of Breibart, McCauley & Newton, P.A., of Lexington, for respondent.
Justice MOORE:
We granted the State's petition for a writ of certiorari to determine whether the post-conviction relief (PCR) court erred by granting respondent relief. We reverse.
Respondent was convicted of trafficking in cocaine, possession with intent to distribute (PWID) cocaine, and two counts of PWID cocaine within proximity of a school. He was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment for trafficking, fifteen years concurrent for PWID cocaine, and ten years concurrent for each count of PWID within proximity of a school. His convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. State v. McLaughlin, 307 S.C. 19, 413 S.E.2d 819 (1992).
ISSUE I
Whether the PCR court erred by finding respondent was incompetent to stand trial?
DISCUSSION
The State argues the PCR court erred by finding respondent was incompetent to stand trial due to the effects of his anti-seizure medication, Dilantin.
While respondent chose not to testify at his PCR hearing, his father (Father) and sister (Sister) testified that respondent's health problems began when he was a teenager. They testified respondent acted strangely, had migraine headaches, mood swings, and was depressed. Father did not attend the trial, but he testified that, prior to trial, respondent was acting strangely. He indicated he had spoken with respondent's counsel about respondent's problems.
Shortly before respondent was arrested, Sister stated he began taking Dilantin, which made him depressed, disoriented, confused, and caused mood swings. Sister indicated she was present with respondent before and during the trial, and that respondent acted strangely and had mood swings. Sister testified respondent did not have any problems communicating with counsel during trial. However, she indicated respondent did not understand counsel when counsel attempted to discuss the terms of an offered plea agreement.
Nancy Culbertson, a pharmacist, testified on respondent's behalf at the PCR hearing. She testified the side effects of
Culbertson indicated she had reviewed respondent's medical records from the Department of Corrections. From the review, she determined respondent exhibited various physical side effects after taking Dilantin. Culbertson testified that respondent's taking of Dilantin could have affected his ability to make rational decisions. She felt that, from reading the trial testimony, respondent could not adequately handle his day-to-day affairs. However, she testified that she could not tell whether respondent was in fact taking Dilantin at the time of trial.1 Further, on cross-examination, Culbertson admitted she was not qualified to examine someone to determine if that person was competent to stand trial and she admitted she did not know the standard for determining whether someone is competent to stand trial.
From our review of respondent's trial testimony, respondent clearly understood the questions he was asked and responded to the questions in an appropriate manner. At no time did respondent indicate he did not understand what counsel was asking him.
Respondent's trial counsel testified that he had no trouble communicating with respondent. As a result of knowing that respondent was taking Dilantin and had been treated for seizures, counsel had him evaluated before trial by a forensic psychiatrist to determine his competency. The psychiatrist did not find any indications that respondent was incompetent. In an effort to provide mitigation in sentencing, counsel informed the trial court that, according to respondent's evaluation, respondent's medical conditions did not interfere with his mental state.
The PCR court found respondent incompetent at the time of trial, and stated "it is clear that [respondent], at the time of his trial was mentally impaired because of his seizure condition; his medication and its adverse effects." (Emphasis in original).
The evidence does not suggest that respondent was incompetent before or during his trial. As noted previously, the pharmacist was not qualified to determine competency and did not know the standard for determining competency to stand trial. The pharmacist also could not determine from the records in her possession whether respondent was even taking the medicine at the time of his trial.
Additionally, the Department of Corrections' medical records are of little probative value because they commence after the completion of respondent's trial and they do not directly relate to respondent's ability to consult with his counsel or to understand the proceedings. Further, none of the physical side effects...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, No. 4297.
...at 366. Our supreme court affirmed a petitioner's convictions for trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine in McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003). Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to preserve for appeal the trial court's refusal to allow cross-examin......
-
Rice v. Cartledge, Civil Action No. 6:14-3748-RMG-KFM
...objection. This Court finds that the solicitor's dosing arguments must be viewed in the context of the entire record. McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003). While the State's closing arguments must be confined to evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences that m......
-
McHam v. State, No. 27287.
...but found to be unpreserved may be raised in the context of a PCR claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003); Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 518 S.E.2d 265 (1999). Based on the foregoing, it is clear the Court of Appeals did not ......
-
Moulton v. Cartledge, Civil Action No. 6:14-2666-DCN-KFM
...v. State, 308 S.C. 119, 417 S.E.2d 530 (1992); see also Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 610 S.E.2d 812 (2005) and McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003). Trial counsel articulated valid strategic reasons for requesting voluntary manslaughter. (App. 873-74). In his response......
-
Brown v. State, 4297.
...at 366. Our supreme court affirmed a petitioner's convictions for trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine in McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003). Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to preserve for appeal the trial court's refusal to allow cross-examin......
-
Rice v. Cartledge, Civil Action No. 6:14-3748-RMG-KFM
...objection. This Court finds that the solicitor's dosing arguments must be viewed in the context of the entire record. McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003). While the State's closing arguments must be confined to evidence in the record and the reasonable inferences that m......
-
McHam v. State, 27287.
...but found to be unpreserved may be raised in the context of a PCR claim alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003); Foye v. State, 335 S.C. 586, 518 S.E.2d 265 (1999). Based on the foregoing, it is clear the Court of Appeals did not ......
-
Moulton v. Cartledge, Civil Action No. 6:14-2666-DCN-KFM
...v. State, 308 S.C. 119, 417 S.E.2d 530 (1992); see also Dempsey v. State, 363 S.C. 365, 610 S.E.2d 812 (2005) and McLaughlin v. State, 352 S.C. 476, 575 S.E.2d 841 (2003). Trial counsel articulated valid strategic reasons for requesting voluntary manslaughter. (App. 873-74). In his response......